On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 16:27, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 15:21, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > Yeah, I was worried about that. The other idea I have previously
> > > > thought was to change Alter Subscription to Drop+Create Subscription.
> > > > That should also help in bringing stability without losing any
> > > > functionality.
> > >
> > > Hm, why would that fix it?
> > >
> >
> > Because for new subscriptions, we will start reading WAL from the
> > latest WAL insert pointer on the publisher which will be after the
> > point where publication is created.
>
> I was able to reproduce the issue consistently with the changes shared
> by Tom Lane at [1].
> I have made changes to change ALTER SUBSCRIPTION to DROP+CREATE
> SUBSCRIPTION and verified that the test has passed consistently for
> >50 runs that I ran. Also the test execution time increased for this
> case is very negligibly:
> Without patch: 7.991 seconds
> With test change patch: 8.121 seconds
>
> The test changes for the same are attached.
Alternative, this could also be fixed like the changes proposed by
Amit at [1]. In this case we ignore publications that are not found
for the purpose of computing RelSyncEntry attributes. We won't mark
such an entry as valid till all the publications are loaded without
anything missing. This means we won't publish operations on tables
corresponding to that publication till we found such a publication and
that seems okay.
Tomas had raised a performance issue forcing us to reload it for every
replicated change/row in case the publications are invalid at [2]. How
about keeping the default option as it is and providing a new option
skip_not_exist_publication while creating/altering a subscription. In
this case if skip_not_exist_publication is specified we will ignore
the case if publication is not present and publications will be kept
in invalid and get validated later.
The attached patch has the changes for the same. Thoughts?
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BT-ETXeRM4DHWzGxBpKafLCp__5bPA_QZfFQp7-0wj4Q%40mail.gmail.com
[2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dc08add3-10a8-738b-983a-191c7406707b%40enterprisedb.com
Regards,
Vignesh
